I am looking at a deeper ancestry connections and I just recently found a close Gd9 in 67 match. In our GD 9 (each loci allele are single steps -1 or +1 only) there is 1 slow (393) marker, 3 medium markers: 460,607,439 (but these are the fastest 3 in the medium group) and five fast markers (456,570,458,449 & CDYb). (For deeper ancestry these three would not be even be considered along with all the fast mutators). This guy states he lives in Scotland and he has traced his ancestor going back to around 1760 [so far].

Age in years for 67 markers after removing DYS 385, DYS 395, DYS 413, DYS 425, DYS 459, DYS 464, YCA II, and CDY: 514.668 years.Corrected Age in years for 67 markers: 484.668.

In essence, five fast and three medium (remember these are the fastest) basically I consider are eight fast mutators with only one slow mutator; each with only one step mutations. All remaining markers match.

The Normans really were an incredible phenonemon. I personally think most were Frankised Gallo-Romans Latinate speakers who were then ruled by Vikings before the Frankish/Latinate culture again predominated. To me, there was little Viking about the Normans culturally by 1066, they were essentially Franks/French perhaps with a more adventurous military tradition inherited from the Vikings. Genetically I suspect the viking element was a small minority even in Normandy judging by lack of a large lasting cultural or linguistic impact. I also think the same about the Franks so I generally consider the French as overwhelmingly Gallo-Roman Latin and before that Gaulish in origin. I dont think we have enough really detailed regional studies using all the new SNPs for the different haoplogroups to be sure about that but I suspect that regardless of who the rulers were, the French are largerly descended from the prehistoric peoples of France and I dont think the bulk of the Norman population were any different in this respect.

The Normans really were an incredible phenonemon. I personally think most were Frankised Gallo-Romans Latinate speakers who were then ruled by Vikings before the Frankish/Latinate culture again predominated. To me, there was little Viking about the Normans culturally by 1066, they were essentially Franks/French perhaps with a more adventurous military tradition inherited from the Vikings. Genetically I suspect the viking element was a small minority even in Normandy judging by lack of a large lasting cultural or linguistic impact. I also think the same about the Franks so I generally consider the French as overwhelmingly Gallo-Roman Latin and before that Gaulish in origin. I dont think we have enough really detailed regional studies using all the new SNPs for the different haoplogroups to be sure about that but I suspect that regardless of who the rulers were, the French are largerly descended from the prehistoric peoples of France and I dont think the bulk of the Norman population were any different in this respect.

Yes, the Normans are a bit of an enigma. Perhaps the Gaulish origin is evidenced by their ability to integrate with others.... at least other Celtics.

This is just one point of evidence. The Norman Marcher Lords who came into the frontier of Wales, post-1066, did deals with and intermarried with the Welsh royalty. who were always fighting each other (um.. a familiar occurrence for Celtics - definitely not a Celtic "nation".)

The resulting "Cambro-Norman" families of Wales invaded Ireland c. 1170. Once again, an integration took place. So much to the point that the English royalty became concerned. The concept expressed was that these Cambro-Normans became "more Irish than the Irish themselves." Some even took Gaelic surnames to spite the authorities back in England.

They are a labeled as Anglo-Normans but I believe this was just because they spoke English. Is that right? Did they speak English or French or a blend of English and French?

Well my 23andme results are in and I just ran my Family inheritance -Advanced and I found myself in the middle of the England box and fringe in Germany, French and Norwegian. Just a smig north of PatricK Tagert. Will share to see what I mean.

Sure that would raise the Max number listed at 95% probability that the MRCA was no longer than the specified number of years or generations, which is 1380 year at 95%. I do not think its going to matter at 1380 yrs. I am not looking to match paper.

This has been bugging me, and I shouldn't be bringing this up here, these people are U106, but it is germane to the direction of the thread.

All of these people are from the Stedman surname project, there are 2364 surnames more common than this in the UK, they all spell there name in exactly the same way, and none of them have closer matches in Ysearch at 67 loci, and yet they are miles apart.

I get 930 years with:- Infinite allele mutation model is used - Average mutation rate varies: 0.0041 to 0.0041, from FTDNA derived rates - Values on the diagonal indicate number of markers tested - Probability is 95% that the TMRCA is no longer than indicated - Average generaton: 30 years

I got 570 years with:

- Infinite allele mutation model is used - Average mutation rate varies: 0.0041 to 0.0041, from FTDNA derived rates - Values on the diagonal indicate number of markers tested - Probability is 50% that the TMRCA is no longer than indicated - Average generaton: 30 years

Much as I have great respect for Ken, the dates he comes up for most of the western and central European clades of R1b are a problem to tally with the archaeological record. They imply that most western R1b people (probably nearly half the population of western Europe) shared a single common ancestor in the mid-late Bronze Age. In some countries like Ireland his dating would indicate majority population replacement at a relatively late date. That makes little sense when compared to the normal interpretation of the archaeological record.

I have an open mind though and its possible that Ken is right and the way the archaeological record is looked at is wrong but it would require a huge u-turn. Kind of like everything you have ever been taught and all the normal approaches to reasoning with the archaeological recotrd being torn up and thrown out. It would also require a reversion to the 'waves of Celts' in the late Bronze Age and Iron Age idea that has been out for about half a century due to lack of evidence. Certainly, in places like the isles, the Late Bronze Age archaeological record is one of distintively local isles cultures with some trade and contact and is not a period you would ever interpret as a period of major population change. The Iron Age in most areas of the isles is also not exactly offering a clear cut invason-like aspect. However its probably not as unlikely as the Late Bronze Age. The real shock would be the degree of population input, most people thinking it was a minor few % one but the DNA requiring (ultimatley) a major populatoin repalcement.

I suppose it is possible that the Celtic lineages (if we can interpret L21 as such) had very small beginings (and therefore low visibility in the archaeological recrod) and the real reason the count is so high in Ireland, Scotland and Wales is simply because they were cut short by the Romans and Germanics elsewhere but their hegemony lasted another 1500 years in the Celtic fringe of the isles. That is a long period for small elites that remained intact to slowly grow into large chunks of the population. The real problem is we have not for most of the isles ever found really strong evidence for the landfall and early strongholds of an invasion of continental Celts in the Late Bronze Age or Iron Age, such as forts or burials with clear;ly intrusive material. That is why most archaeologists would tend to be more comfortable with a Neolithic origin fro the bulk of y-DNA, a period where the begining and to a lesser degree end present sharp cultural changes.

So you think Ken's estimates are on the low side, I have heard a theory that mutation rates could vary between families with some having unusually unstable DNA.

An alternative could be the name was drawn from a place thus allowing people to share a name but have a common ancestor before surnames were introduced, there is a candidate village in the area called Stedham but it sounds a bit neat for my liking.

Using Tim Janzen's variance calc you can remove the odd haplotype(s) from the mix and then see if the TMRCA changes significantly. If it does then that would need more research as to why it changed that much, meaning it may be an NPE not in the main line.

Then would use McGee's .YCH data result to generate Fluxus phylogenetic network to see how everyone is connected.